|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through August 11, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Archive through August 11, 1999
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 August 1999 - 04:11 am |        | Wolf / Jim
This robbery issue is something that I too have considered likely, not that robbery was the intent, certainly not.
But because Chapmans & Eddowes pockets had been rifled & contents scattered I considered 'Jack' was looking for something and possibly taking away any coins he may have come across.
Also, I wondered if the accepted 'business' proposition of the time was that the prostitute had to see the colour of your money before she accepted the client. If this indeed was the case, especially with the experienced class of pro. then maybe Chapman entered the yard with her payment in her pocket. And Eddowes entered Mitre Sq. carrying her 2d too.
So, why no money on their person following the last liason?, because Jack, routed around to get it back.
But did he have time to do this?, especially in the case of Eddowes, ....which once again brings into question the time factor, I wonder if Jack had more time with his victims than we are led to believe.
And if he did need to get back his 2d then maybe he was not of the 'upper class' or Doctor type who could well afford not to be bothered.
And if he was routin around for anything else to take, then that might presume these women had something that he already knew/suspected they were carrying, therefore these liasons were then not random, but he stalked them. Not likely, I admit, but then, not impossible either.
Interesting sideline points to consider I suppose.
Jon |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 07 August 1999 - 06:22 am | | Hello Everybody,
I don't think that life was as cheap as a few coppers in Victorian London so I'm afraid I won't be buying a subscription into the robbery as some form of indirect motive.
Similarly, are we so sure that MJK had any money? Cox stated that she saw Kelly,in the company of another man,in an extremely inebriated condition. Is it not more likely then that Kelly had spent what little money she had prior to being seen by Cox. Could we not speculate that Kelly's client didn't pay for her services that night leaving her drunk and pink lint.
I think it is far more likely that Kelly had no money, i.e. she had spent what she had been given/earned. This scenario fits in with the facts, Barnett's insistence that MJK was scared of the Ripper, her desperate need for a token payment towards her rent arrears actually driving her on to the street. And finally, perhaps this obliquely shows the personality of the Prima Donna of Spitalfields.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 08 August 1999 - 05:31 am | | Rabbi -
Interesting thoughts, as always. This also brings to mind two considerations that have always intrigued me as minor Mary Jane Kelly mysteries, viz.:
- why did McCarthy allow Kelly to fall so far behind on her rent?
- why did Kelly let her debt mount up to such an amount?
The answer to the first is, at present, probably unknowable; most speculation I have seen on the matter centres on Kelly either being related to McCarthy in some fashion or satiating him with a regular seeing-to.
But the second question raises some points to ponder. I think we are all agreed that while Kelly was certainly not the lustrous-haired temptress so often imagined, she probably was not as much of an old boot as some of the older, more ill-used Whitechapel women were. Given that, why, then, does it appear that Kelly put off going on the streets for as long as possible? Can it all be put down to simple fear of the Ripper? Perhaps our view of Kelly is the wrong way round? Admittedly, she does not appear to have done anything else in her life but prostitution, but we must wonder if this was a conscious choice or one forced on her because she could not - or would not - do anything else.
Rather than seeing her as a purposeful prostitute, might she not have been desperate to avoid selling herself, doing it only when circumstances literally forced her on to the street in order to keep a roof above her head?
Sorry if a bit incoherent - I am in a rush this morning. Thoughts, anyone?
CMD |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 August 1999 - 06:50 am | | Two good points of interest Chris.
On your first point only, knowing that Kelly's mother's maiden name was McCarthy tends to offer an avenue for research, but I felt sure that Peter Birchwood would have been all over that possibility like a shot.
If we have a definate finding on that, could someone share it with us?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 08 August 1999 - 07:10 am | | Hi, All:
Just a reminder that we will be discussing "Mary Jane Kelly - Was She a Ripper Victim?" today, Sunday, at 3:00 pm, EDT in the CP chat room at http://venus.beseen.com/chat/rooms/a/432561/
Chris George
Treasurer
Casebook Productions
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/ |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 08 August 1999 - 08:24 am | | Hi Jon:
Thanks for the plug, but I do think that the jury is still out on the birth of Mary Jane. The birth in Castletown, Limerick is a possibility but there are others which are as likely and of course we are so close to the start of Irish Civil Registration that the chances are that she was never recorded. I don't know if Limerick has had its pre-1900 baptisms computerised yet: if so, someone could perhaps check things out. I was actually in Castletownbere two weeks ago, (Co. Cork, not Co. Limerick as Nick Warren suggests) and those able to receive UK Television might be able to see the result of my labours on Sunday August 15th on Granada TV's "Find a Fortune."
Peter |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 07:21 am | | Hi All,
Jon: I have no personal experience in these matters, but my understanding is you pay before you play. If this is the case, then both Chapman and Eddowes must have been carrying their payment when they were killed, and JtR therefore rifled their pockets to retrieve it. And yes, this behavior suggests a member of the poor working (or unemployed) class rather than a doctor or a well-to-do cotton merchant.
Rabbi: we do know that Kelly was actively soliciting that night, and had brought at least one client back to her room (the man with the carrotty mustache seen by Cox). Also, if it was the case that a client was required to pay first, and if Hutchinson is to be believed, there should have been money from a second client as well. Kelly did not encounter Hutchinson's man until shortly after 2AM, Hutchinson followed the pair back to Miller's Court and waited outside for ~45 minutes. This means Hutchinson's man did not leave Kelly's room until sometime after 2:45AM, long after the pubs had closed, Kelly would have had no opportunity to spend it on drink. So, she should have had some money in her room, but to my knowledge none was found.
Of course, the above depends on how much credence one gives to Hutchinson's statement. It also requires that one accept the time of death of ~4 AM. However, even if the statements of Mrs. Maxwell and Lewis the tailor are correct that Kelly was at the Ringers between 9-10 AM, any client she picked up at that time would have to had paid her first, so there should still have been some money found in her room.
CMD: Donald Rumbelow suggested in his "Jtr: the Complete Casebook" that the term "McCarthy's Rents" referred not to the rooms in Miller's Court, but to some of the tenants, i.e., that he was pimping and allowed Kelly to run up the debt in order to gain greater control over her. At least two other residents of the Court, Cox and Prater, were also prostitutes so this is a possiblility.
Thanks all,
Jim |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 09:22 am | | Hello Everybody,
This question of money and payment seems to be quite a vexing issue with a multitude of options.
To Mr. DiPalma and his very logical post first, "both Chapman and Eddowes must have been carrying their payment when they were killed" - not so, if JTR was their first client of the night, and bearing in mind that he could have been as at least one of them was only pounding the beat in order to pay for a bed, it would then follow that JTR may have struck before coppers changed hands. In fact, pretending to reach for his money may have been his premise for pulling out his knife.
As to MJK, there is obviously a whole compendium of paradox and conundrum available. However, the point that I would like to make is that she was either lazy or a lousy whore. (Apologies). If we look at Cox' statement it is apparent that she entertained three sad clients whilst the unfortunate Kelly performed her impromptu concert. This doesn't seem to be the behaviour of a woman, desperate for money, and living off immoral earnings. Would she not have been more likely to get rid of carrot whiskers at the soonest moment then recommence her trawl round the alleys for other clients?
As I stated before there is ample evidence to assume that MJK spent all her money prior to going home. The same cannot be said for assuming the veracity of Hutchinson's, or the others, statements.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 05:53 pm | | Considering that Catharine Eddowes had just been turned out of Bishopsgate Police Station before her fateful meeting with the Ripper, it is almost a certainty that she had no money on her. Why? Because it would seem that she'd spent it all taking on enough fuel to spark her imitation of a fire engine earlier that evening.
Sorry about that. Sometimes puns do seem to flare up (D'oh!).
Just a quick note. Interesting thought about MJKs laziness, though, Rabbi, and a subject I will try to return to tomorrow.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 04:40 am | | As someone who finds the topic of money in the JtR case an interesting sidenote, let me clarify what I think about the issue.
I do not think that any money possessed by the victims at the time of their death played any role in the motives for the killings.
I do not think money is connected to any person enough to count as a "trophy." (For example, unless the coin is rare or holds some sentimental value to the possessor -- a value likely to be unknown to a stranger who killed her -- two people could throw a bunch of coins on the table and not be able to say which coin was theirs. Only the amount each originally possessed is likely to be known.)
I cannot say for certain which victim may or may not have had money at the times of their death (though I think it likely in some cases: Stride, Chapman, and Kelly are the best candidates) -- and I'm not convinced that anyone else can be certain, one way or the other.
What little money they had may not have been catalogued in the police reports -- though I think this unlikely.
Any money may have been taken by others who found the bodies -- this too is unlikely, but more of a possibility than the police ignoring the cash.
But if any money was present, the most likely candidate to have taken it would be the murderer.
And if the murderer was JtR, and the motive for the murders wasn't money/robbery, no pressing economic need (he could have found better victims outside the East End if he was motivated by money)...what does it say about JtR that he seems (repeat: seems) to have taken their money, post-mortem?
A further note: in Stride's case -- if you accept her as a JtR victim, and that money was taken from her corpse (big IFs for lots of people, I know) -- we may even have a glimpse at JtR's priorities in his post-mortem activities. He did not have the time to start his mutilations, but he took the time to search the corpse and take whatever money Stride might have made during her long day. The search first, the mutilations after.
What would such behavior mean?
Yaz
P.S., Since this is Kelly's topic, I have to respectfully offer another opinion on Kelly's activities on the night she was killed. Far from Kelly's being lazy, she may have charged more money, offered more for it, and still been successful. Prostitution was not a unionized or government-controlled activity with set prices. It seems that, considering the tastes of the times in determining female beauty -- an ever-moving measurement -- that Kelly might have been considered beautiful, and customers may have been willing to pay more for her time.
Just a thought. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 11:55 am | | True, Yaz, but 29 shillings behind on the rent is a substantial amount of money, and I submit that Kelly would have had to have been a great deal more beautiful than even the wildest fantasists believe her to have been to have come up with such an amount in a single night. This is assuming, of course, that she didn't already have some money put aside to give to McCarthy which was subsequently taken away by her murderer.
Additonally, her activity on the night of November 9 shows her to be going out to find customers rather than they finding their way to her. If she is going to be going out to find a punter, and if she brings him back to her flat each time, and if we grant her charging the most the market will bear (what might that have been? 4p, 6p, 1s - even half-a-crown?) she is still looking at a high rate of activity in a limited amount of time, assuming even that she finds a willing partner as soon as she steps out of doors.
In short, Mary Jane Kelly seems to have got herself into a hopeless position by the evening of the 9th, though whether it be by laziness, fear or even the all-too-human tendency to put off unpleasant things as long as possible is, I think, beyond our ken. I think the recurrent question of "why was Kelly allowed to live at No. 13 when she was so far in debt" ought to be expanded to include the motivations for both McCarthy and Kelly in letting such a sum build up.
Christopher-Michael
N.B. - in looking over the above, I realise the discussion of Kelly searching for custom reads too flippantly, as though what she was doing were of no more concern than popping out to the chandler's shop for food. I assure anyone reading here it is certainly not my intention to treat such a sensitive subject as prostitution - willful or forced - lightly. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 01:46 pm | | Several thoughts:
We'll likely never know, but Kelly's ability to spend money could be in exact relationship to the amount of money she could earn...or thought she could, anyway. Many people spend more than they earn...even people who make quite a bit of money. Maybe McCarthy knew more about Kelly's ability to raise the money than we do, or than he or Barnett ever said.
We know nothing of the circumstances of Kelly's debt to McCarthy. We do know she was still renting there on the night she died, however -- a sign that some conscious or unconscious arrangement had been made between Kelly and McCarthy over the money owed.
Why would McCarthy wait so long for his money?
Why wouldn't he have had Kelly evicted or arrested -- even assuming that arrest for debt wouldn't have gotten him a single penny, McCarthy would have been free to rent the room to a paying customer?
What relationship did the other women who occasionally shared Kelly's room have with money owed to either Kelly and/or McCarthy -- did Kelly and/or McCarthy earn a percentage of any earnings garnered by the other women who used the room?
Also, how reliable in the first place is this supposed back-rent amount Kelly owed -- Kelly was no longer alive to dispute it, after all?
Too many unanswerable questions surround that debt.
But let's assume she owed that amount.
I need not see anything sinister -- even something as relatively trivial, compared to murder -- in Kelly and McCarthy possibly exchanging services.
I am also not suggesting that Kelly was, or even thought she was, going to earn the whole sum back in one night. I see no reason to think she had only a single night to come up with the entire rent when she had gone so long supposedly not paying any rent.
What the market will bear for prostitution tells us nothing about Kelly's charges either. Even if we were fairly confident of the average charge for prostitution (the market value) in Autumn 1888, the market value can do no more than give us an average. Kelly's -- or anyone else's -- ability to charge a higher rate is merely a factor in the average...some charged more than the average, some less. Where was Kelly on the spectrum? I don't know. If some trick liked Kelly's looks, perhaps he was willing to pay a higher price -- who knows. How will we ever know, at this point?
I'm not concerned with specific questions of Kelly's -- or any other victim's -- debt load when I ask my question about money and its relationship to many or all of the JtR-related murders.
I'd like to separate my question about money from any other questions about Kelly's debt to McCarthy etc. It's just that I noticed a brief discussion under this topic on the abscence of money found on the victims, and I wanted to clarify my personal views on it.
But since you asked...
If neither Barnett or McCarthy were ever accused of the murder, or any of the other JtR murders, I consider that pretty good evidence of their innocence. As Stewart Evans said elsewhere, his suspect has some official sanction in that the police were looking for his suspect, and one left a record of suspicions he was JtR. Other writers have offered scenarios based on other official police documents casting suspicions on certain men. Whether M.J. Trow's rather precocious article affects those suspects, I rather doubt. Trow's thesis being that you can take any details of a life and make them sound sinister...even guilty.
But we do not have any police records of suspicion related to McCarthy, Barnett, Hutchinson, or anyone connected to the victim or scene of the last official JtR murder. I think Trow's thesis holds true in regards to these men.
None of this leaves us with a clue if Kelly had earned any money, even if only a few pennies, what happened to that money. Or what happened to any of the other victims' money.
Where are we safe in assuming a victim had some money at the time of her death?
Where are we safe in assuming the murderer took that money?
Assuming no economic motive for any of the murders and the impersonal nature of money (negating any worth as a "trophy"), why would a sexually-deviant serial killer bother to rob his victims of even a few pennies?
Does this postulated behavior on the part of the murderer provide any clue to the killer's background, history, motivation, or anything else?
Yaz |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 03:04 pm | | I think it is a mistake to think of the money as "impersonal." I must add that I don't know what to make of it myself, but I do know that it is legendary among psychologists that conflict over money is far more vicious than any other type of dispute. The whole weird history of the links between money, guilt, feces and sexuality has some application here if someone with the right qualifications can fill us in on the details.
Here's a couple of links with relevant articles:
http://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap106h.html
http://au.spunk.org/library/misc/sp000127.txt |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 06:23 pm | | Hey Rotter!
My point about money being impersonal is to point out that is not often (ever?) a so-called "trophy" item (which was RED DEMON's point...where is he, by the way?) like a garment/jewellry worn by the victim or, in extreme cases, parts of the victims. But there's probably an exception somewhere to this in the psycho-killer hall of shame!
Money, if it was indeed taken from some or all of the victims, obviously had some attraction to the murderer (again, if we can feel confident he and no one else took it). But here again I don't think the murders were committed for or about money...which touches upon the Rabbi's objection.
I'll hold off speculating on this issue until more people feel comfortable with it...that money, even very small amounts, was important enough to the murderer for him to take it...and when or if we can be more definite that this petty theft probably happened. (No, we'll never know that money was taken since we don't know what the victims carried before their murders. All we have is a high, medium, or low probability.)
I will throw another wrench into the works by reminding you all that Chapman's brass rings were taken, there was a search of pawnshops and such for the missing rings, and they were never found (unless you think Tumblety done did it!). The red leather cigarette case found on Eddowes' body would be another likely item for theft and pawning, same as the rings. This time though, the killer leaves the case. If he was motivated by the thought of Chapman's rings' resale value, knew of the search for the rings and their potential link to his identity, does leaving the distinctive red leather case show his ability to think/learn in what we can surmise is a highly excited state (i.e., after killing his victim)? And if he was smart enough in this criminal procedure, why was he so stupid in several other areas...like the attempts to remove some of the victim's heads using the same basic tool that failed the first time?
Thanks for the information, Rotter. You also always have interesting questions and comments. You must do research for a living, no? The link with "spunk" in the title has me a bit worried about what I'll find there, I must add.
If this issue is interfering with further discussion of Kelly, let me know and I'll take it elsewhere (no, I won't accept any colorful hints or proposals as to exactly where I can take meself and this idea, thank you very much though -- grins!)
Yaz |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 06:51 pm | | Sorry, Yazoo, I'm not picking on you, I just happened to pick up your word. I would agree that nobody could say that money was the motive, but I think he took the money for some psychosexual reason. I would definitely go against the idea that the Ripper must have been poor merely because he took the money back (part of the case against Bury for example). I suppose you could say that a wealthy Ripper could have tempted women with large sums, and then would have taken the money back because it would point his way if the women were found with several pounds on them. But I drift toward the opinion that the money (if there was money) was taken (if it was taken) for some symbolic reason rather than for its value as money.
I've just heard of a case in Texas that seems like a gay equivalent of Ripper-type killer (of males). I can dig up details if anyone is interested.
Thanks for the kind comments. |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 04:13 am | | No problem, Rotter. I'm just still not certain that this "theft" actually occured. The few pennies involved and the issue of why the murderer took the money (if he took it) may not have been seen as important by more qualified researchers than I. If they think it likely money should have been present in some or all cases, and that the money was definitely gone rather than just not mentioned in either their primary sources or my secondary sources...then I'll pursue the issue further.
Right now, to me, it's just a question more than a statement of fact. I'd like others to verify this observation, and my arguments have been offered to remove any pre-conceived or biased impedimenta to actually reviewing the contemporary records and validating the observation.
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 05:02 am | | Just sticking my nose in for a second...IF there was money and IF it was taken by the killer..then what does that money represent to the killer? Perhaps it has the same connotations as Judas' twenty pieces of silver..ill gotten gains....the women were doing the nasty for what? For money. Why did these women have to sell themselves..to earn money. Maybe the killer wanted to take all he could from these women including the reason why they were selling themselves, maybe he sneered as he pocketed the pennies mumbling things like "Now you don't even have the money you sold your skanky body for", or "I've got you now..all of you..even the most important thing in your life..your gin money!" But seriously..the money..if there WAS any, could represent many things to the killer. He probably went to a pub, set down the money proudly and ordered a gin in his victim's memory.
Edana |
Author: RLeen
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 08:54 am | | Hello Everybody,
Yazoo raised some interesting scenarios with regard to the money that MJK may have possessed. The point which caught my attention though concerned Mr. M'Carthy. How do we know that he was due the sum of 29 shillings as claimed? Was this information first regaled to the police or passed on to an enterprising journalist? If it was the latter then I would propose that the arrears figure was a porky pie, a bit of showboating in which M'Carthy is basically saying "look at me everybody, I'm so damned wealthy I can hold out for a quid and a half." Perhaps I'm just being cynical, perhaps yesterday's news has affected my normal placid outlook on life.
No matter what MJK owed I am still confident that she had no money, either conspicuously displayed or on her person. (One avenue that hasn't been explored, of course, is that MJK had a hidey-hole where she stashed her loose change.) The reason for my confidence lies within the grisly tale of the Yorkshire Ripper. I make no apologies for dredging this up again because there are some uncanny parallels between the two cases. Try this one....
A prostitute was found battered to death and in her purse was found a crisp fiver, a newly circulated five pound note. This money was traced, using it's serial number, from the Bank of England, via a high street bank to a large haulage firm which used the cash to pay wages. As you can guess, Peter Sutcliffe aka the Yorkshire Ripper was one of the recipients of the batch of notes. He was questioned by police for the third time and released without suspicion to carry on wreaking havoc for another 4 years and half a dozen lives.
So what does this prove? Well first of all it shows no pyschosexual connection between money, victim or killer. Any, ghastly word, "trophies" are more liable to be items of clothing, especially undergarments. It also shows a disregard for money. In those days, as the old codgers on this board will testify, a fiver went quite a long way. Sutcliffe knew she had the money, after all he gave it to her, yet he never took it back. This also dispenses with the notion of the intelligent killer, it just shows luck is sometimes better than judgement. A factor reinforced by my last point, the woeful innocence of the police detectives who continually chased a red herring, (a hoax tape message), instead of looking at the frequency of Sutcliffe's appearances in their interviewing rooms.
I apologise for the simmering theme in this posting but sometimes this world makes you wonder....
Rabbi Leen |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 09:07 am | | The significance of the Ripper taking the few pennies from his victims? His pettiness.
David |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 09:34 am | | Hi All,
Does anyone know or like to hazard a few guesses as to what WOULD have happened to any money HAD it been found on any of the victims? Presumably it should have found it's way eventually to the victims' nearest and dearest, however little the amount. But somehow I doubt it would have got that far. Maybe one of the first people to find the body would be likely to pocket any coins found, considering the poverty of the area. I suppose if Jack had thought about this he could have resented the idea of anyone else (including the police?) profiting in any way from HIS work.
Although my feeling is that the killer would not have NEEDED any money from his victims, I also think he may have resented paying for services he was not remotely interested in (apart from the pleasure of doing the ladies in of course :-)). Therefore I'd go along with Rabbi Leen's suggestion that the knife came in lieu of the payment. Or else he watched where each gal stashed the cash, so he could retrieve it easily, being a tight wad and not wanting to see even farthings of his own hard-earned money going to what he'd consider a bad cause.
Also I don't think the ladies gave their earnings a chance to build up much between clients. They seemed to spend whatever they got almost immediately on more booze, then probably used their last client of the night to get their doss money. So in Mary Kelly's case it may be that she was doing the same with her earnings, and thought HER last client was going to cough up enough to satisfy McCarthy. After all, he did send Bowyer round that fateful morning in the hope of collecting some back rent. Was this an everyday hope of McCarthy's or did he have a hint from Mary that this time she was expecting to have some cash ready for him?
Going off slightly, can we tell anything more about our killer by the way he apparently took what would have been extremely precious time out to sort through a couple of the victims' other meagre possessions, and to 'arrange' some of them by the bodies? They were not considered worth taking even as trophies, never mind for economic reasons, so was there any purpose to his rummaging?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
